We Want Ogg
Internet Explorer and Safari should support Ogg Vorbis audio. Let them know!


is a campain directed by the members of a startup (Scirra) develloping creation tools as their logo says. They have developped Construct Classic (which is now in the hands of its large community on the developpement side) and are currently working on Construct 2 which exports your games to HTML5.

And so they came up with the idea of this campain as they were facing the problem of sound compatibility between browsers.

Please, read the We Want Ogg Campaign's page and be sure to like it, share it, spread the word so that the maximum amount of people would gather and put enough leverage on big corporations to have them change their ways and do things the people's way for once.

Microsoft and Apple both turned down open video formats, what makes people think that they would adopt open audio formats?

It's in HTML5 specification (vorbis and theodra formats are strongly suggested).
And it is also a matter of internet citizenship. If a massive amount of players/people that feel concern gathers, it will weight in the balance.
Aren't you tired that big corporations prefer profit over good sense ?
It may be time to raise your voice then.

If you don't do it for us, do it for yourself and the games you'll be playing in the future.

I use Chrome, so honestly, I don't give a shit about PROPRIETARY CRAPWARE.

Honestly, anyone who knows what Ogg is should be using a decent browser in the first place; all the open browsers support it, even Firefox!


This is not a situation of "big corporations prefer profit over good sense", this is a situation of "big corporations prefer to propagate their own products but still give you the choice to use a different product"

By the way, if you are using Safari or IE, then you are doing way more to support big companies preferring profit over common sense than supporting "Ogg for IE and Safari" ever will.

Irony!!!

I'm of course not using IE or Safari, but using Firefox.

The correct sentence is even Chrome in fact.
In term of open, Firefox is far more advanced, and gives freedom to its users.
Google imposed its own streaming codec as far as videos are concerned. Chrome is far from the most open software around, you should do a little research around too before throwing big words around. Chrome users are heavily tracked. Maybe even more than IE's, that's to say. And google is trying to impose a lot of their own technology in the mean time.
Even chromium (the open source pendant of webkit/chrome) still plugs you into tracking devices when you're browsing).
There's few freedom in there than you think.

Firefox imposes nothing. If someone cares about decent opened browsering, that person uses Firefox.


You don't have the choice of using OGG format under IE. It simply isn't supported.
Are you totally missing the point ?

Also having the big corprorations supporting OGG will ease a lot developpement of games in HTML5 (which is the point I'm interested in). One format supported on each browser is far more productive and effective than having to make the sound effects in different parts, and then inside the game having to check for what browser the user's using.

Them's fighting words!

I could simply refute you by saying "FF has a far slower dev iteration leading to slower adoption of open standards" :3
Also, Chrome has a higher adoption ratio in the first place, so even if FF could match Chrome's velocity, then it doesn't much matter.

I can tell you are a FF user since you went straight to "GOOGLE IS EVIL" :/ I wish FF fanatics would come up with some new ones!

Chrome users are not heavily tracked... Anonymous data mining is not tracking... Don't hate just because FF is the only one that can't get it's shit together and start doing some serious analysis...


There is no expectation that IE would support open standards.
Thus there is no surprise when it is stated that they do not...


True, but obviously IE and Safari are obviously not going to be used for that for a long time in the first place.
Have a look at IE and Safari's HTML5 support in the first place, and have a look at their benchtests, THEN explain to me who would be using it...

Typical scenario; Chrome/FF/Opera user shows IE/Safari user a HTML5 game, second user cannot run game, first user helps second user upgrade to a better browser.

This is WAY better than just using a browser that *has* Ogg support, but is a piece of shit in every other way...

I'm not a fanatic, I've used chrome during the last few years, and the result was me switching back to FF when 4.0 was released.
I didn't go all the way to "google is evil" straight away, I pointed out the tracking and imposing of formats and unecesseray deturned connexion in page loading.
You maybe don't see it, but I remember when using chrome and asking for a page, I also add connexions going to google analytics, adds, storage and more servers.
Hell I didn't ask for those, wtf ? All the advertising stuff is far too much for me.
Plus it's pretty hard to get a decent addblocker on chrome.
I found it far more easier on FF. Maybe I missed some points or way, but at the time, addblock plus on chrome used only rules set via txt from what I understood. Yerk.
I don't mind scripting, but not for add blocking when implementations like addblock plus for FF exists.

I have a little countryside internet connexion, chrome wasn't that fast in loading pages. I mean when they were to appear, they appeared in a flash, but the time to download the whole page was delayed by those multiple unrequired connexions.
I then used Iron, which is based on chromium, strapping it from such inconvenients.
Then, yes, the pages loaded fast and it was quite impressive.

Yet, the configuration (how to alter and adapt the soft to your browsing habits (not the inverse) was pretty limited (compared to a FF).
That's one of the major thing that made me come back to FF.
Also, I didn't like very much the multiplication of processes for chrome, each tab was a new process, I don't like it much. I still have a duo-core computer.

I used to have memory issues with FF, and in 5.0 they seem to be corrected. So that's fine by me and I'm a happy user.
Yet I don't say the other browsers suck. I just have my preference and recon their strengths and weaknesses.


Well, it has some truth, but in the end, your vision is utopic.
Typical scenario : a dude who uses regulary his computer and isn't afraid of messing a bit in it and have over average knowledge in his PC will show some dude with a PC and windows a HTML5 game.
The dude with the PC will try it in his IE ('cause that's the familly browser that was on the PC when they bought it) and it will work approximatevely.
Then some Microsoft pages will lead the dude with the PC to some platform selling/monetizing on html5 games that work perfectly in IE (like using silverlight, or other proprietary formats and licenses) and will spend his money there.
The dude with average knowledge will propose to install FF or chrome because "it's better".
The dude with a PC will decline and put more money in this one website.
The dude with average knowledge will stick to his browser and his indy/niche games.

Here's what the mainstream looks like.


I don't know where you get your facts from, but obviously you haven't take a look over some recent benchmark.
Chrome is far from being as idillyc as you describe it, and IE is far from being as "shitty" as you like to label it.
All browsers have their strength and weaknesses, but Chrome isn't "killing the opposition". It is rather each browsers updating constantly through the months, each major update from one answering and being answered by updates from the others.
IE9 on windows 7 has been quite a surprise as they were the first to have hardware accelerated canvas proposing good stability/performances. It is a reliable system and will be a major player, and not just some IE6 you'll get rid of.
Chrome hasn't hardware accelerated canvas checked as a default option yet. In chrome 13 you still have to manually enable it.
And you were talking about slowness of dev iteration ?
Once again, check your facts before throwing opinions. Opinions are somewhat legitimate, but they only reflect what you think, not what is.




Once again, the purpose of the We Want OGG campaign is to help change mentalities. Keep being passive if you will. I'm sick and tired of being.

See already, the number of posts, and the time spent, when all you could have done, is tell yourself "why not ?" and like/share the campain's page to other people.
That's not much, but yet you seem to be ready to start some sort af argument about "It wasn't planned, don't rant about it". Yes I will rant, because the fact of not planning it is a mistake imo and should be corrected.
It is not that much to do, and it would benefit the entire web, the browser companies, the third-party developpers and the fnal users.
So why not ? We want OGG !

I have a question just one question..whats OGG?

OGG on wikipedia
(simplifying the concept a lot there). It is an open source audio compression format. To reduce the sound file size (raw format is generally .wav which takes a lot of disk space) you will compress it.
To play the OGG sound, you need some piece of code that will first decompress it and then allow your sound card to play it.
The code required to compress/decompress OGG files is open source (free, any one can use and reuse it) and so could be easily implemented in any web browser, allowing any browser to play ogg sounds in the end.